Monday, October 30, 2006

Our UCV buddy and fellow right wing conspirator, CargoSquid, sent a short message from Kuwait:

"Go elect some conservatives for me and tick off an antiwar creep for me too."

Roger that, CargoSquid. And just in case you get a chance to check the blog, we are stockpiling a few cases of Diet-Coke and Mentos for your homecoming extravaganza... er, picnic. We are grateful and proud of you and all the men and women over there. God bless, stay safe and keep us posted.

I find this bit from the Weekly Standard illuminating.Dems, be careful what you wish for.

Webb's views of immigration, like many of his positions on questions of domestic policy, are unformed. It's not hard to imagine where his populism and ethnic allegiance would lead him, though. One thing that all economists agree on--those who favor the present influx of immigrants and those who don't--is that mass immigration lowers the wages of unskilled, uneducated native-born workers; "my people," as Webb calls them. A quick way to raise those wages would be to cut off the future flow of unskilled immigration. Yet this step toward "economic fairness" is not available to a Democratic candidate these days (or to many Republicans either).

In a brief and uncomfortable stump speech, Webb told the Hispanic crowd that he was against a guest-worker program. "We must first define our borders," he said. "And then we must ensure corporate responsibility, because a lot of this is going to come down to the employers."

The crowd seemed puzzled. Later reporters asked Webb to clarify his position. With Tejada next to him, he said he favored some path to legalization and citizenship for the illegals already here. Tejada nodded solemnly. But what about the future? a reporter asked. Would Webb favor tough economic sanctions against businesses that employ illegals, as a way of drying up the tide of immigrants?

"Yes," Webb said, "there needs to be corporate enforcement. We've had no corporate enforcement for six years! There's got to be employer sanctions, otherwise you're going to keep wages down. We have got to get a handle on this."

Tejada glanced at the ceiling. Punishing employers who hire illegals is not, needless to say, part of the game plan for the community, or for Arlington Democrats.

After Webb was gone, I asked Tejada about this. "Does Webb really want to punish employers who hire members of the community?"

"The devil is in the details," Tejada said. "Jim is a very complex thinker. We as a country need to have a long debate about these things."

"But wouldn't punishing employers reduce the opportunities for workers coming across the border?" I said.

"We will continue to work with Jim on this," Tejada said. "We will consult with him, advise him going forward. Educate him."

****Warning: This Hollywood liberals rant, is not for children!(Edited Version)****Wimps or P^$$!&s- You decidehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nguJQ_dRPXw&NRNot only do these retards run an ad that is morally and logically unsound, and MOCK Michael J Fox for having a disease, they have set it so that comments must be approved by them. Anything they don't like, doesn't get approved. Pure lameness. Are they wimps or p^$$%s?This is a good opportunity to state that Patricia Heaton is a worthless whore. When Bryan Singer and I were doing APT PUPIL, we made the mistake of offering her the role of the mother. It was a small role, and her career was nothing at the time. She didn't want to do it. People pass all the time, so fine. She was offended by the role. Okay, fine, f@#*k you be offended b!$#h. But no- the worthless whore wrote a letter to Sherry Lansing the head of the studio complaining that the film was evil and would destroy children's minds. She was ignored and mocked, of course, but can you believe this worthless human s^*t would have liked to STOP a movie because it offended her lame p^$$y sensibilities?I'd vote yes for experimenting on Patricia Heaton cells.As for Cavaziel, have you seen him in anything lately? Thought so.********THAT IS WHY YOU HAVE MODERATED COMMENTS AND A POSTING POLICY!!!

The People's Weekly World, a communist (yes, a few still exist in America) rag, are enamored of Mr. Jim Webb-X and his views on Labor. Why am I not surprised?

That same mood is spurring the labor movement in Virginia where Democrat James Webb, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, is running hard to oust GOP Sen. George Allen. Webb opposed the Iraq war before it began and has been hammering Allen for his rubber-stamp backing of Bush’s failed war and occupation.

Doris Crouse-Mays, secretary-treasurer of the Virginia AFL-CIO, said the 190,000 union members in Virginia played a huge role in electing Democrat Tim Kaine as governor in 2005. The labor movement fielded 1,700 volunteers who knocked on 40,000 doors and distributed 415,000 get-out-the-vote leaflets to help elect Kaine.

Now, she said, union members are working just as hard to elect Webb. “The loss of jobs and the economy, when people are working longer hours, holding down multiple jobs just to stay alive, its time for a change,” she told the World by phone from her Richmond office.

“The minimum wage hasn’t been raised for 10 years,” she said. “Jim Webb has already said he will support an increase in the federal minimum wage. Sen. Allen voted against a minimum wage increase but he voted to raise his own salary. A rising tide is not floating all boats.”

Joe Szakos, executive director of the Virginia Organizing Project, said his group does not endorse candidates yet is mobilizing for a big vote Nov 7. “We point out the obvious: Senator Allen opposes a minimum wage increase. Jim Webb supports an increase,” he said. "

Nixon: "We believe that marriage is one of the fundamental building blocks of a healthy society and that we have an obligation to uphold it.”

The following is from a press release October 25, 2006:

McDonnell: “Marriage in Virginia must remain the traditional union of one man and one woman.”

Bolling: “Let me be clear about this – there will be no unintended consequences from the passage of this amendment.”

Richmond- Attorney General Bob McDonnell and Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling today joined together in a united show of support for passage of the Marriage Amendment this November. Also joining the Attorney General and Lieutenant Governor at the afternoon press conference in Richmond was Delegate Sam Nixon (R-Chesterfield).

Both statewide officeholders, and Delegate Nixon, urged voters to focus on the central issue at hand: what form should marriage take in Virginia ? They also reiterated that there is no legal basis for the claims of a flood of “unintended consequences” raised by some amendment opponents.

Attorney General Bob McDonnell noted, “Three-fourths of the members of the General Assembly voted twice in support of placing this marriage amendment before the voters in order to protect the traditional institution of marriage. I urge Virginians to support this measure.”

Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling remarked, “This common sense amendment will simply give constitutional protection to the statutory laws banning same sex marriage and same sex unions that have been in place in Virginia for years. Without this amendment these laws could be struck down at any moment by an activist judge who thinks it is OK for a man to marry a man and a woman to marry a woman. That has happened in other states, and it could happen in Virginia .”

Delegate Sam Nixon added, “This amendment is about defending and protecting traditional marriage in Virginia . We believe that marriage is one of the fundamental building blocks of a healthy society and that we have an obligation to uphold it.”

Both the Attorney General and the Lieutenant Governor have been active in urging support of the Marriage Amendment. In his capacity as the Commonwealth’s top lawyer, McDonnell issued his formal opinion on September 14th that the amendment “….will not affect current legal rights and obligations of unmarried persons involving contracts, wills, advance medical directives, shared equity agreements, employer accident and sickness insurance policies, or protection under domestic violence laws.” To read the full opinion of the Attorney General please visit: Opinions Newman et al

Lieutenant Governor Bolling has spoken in favor of the amendment statewide and recently run radio ads urging Virginians to vote yes in support of traditional marriage.

General Grevious' Dog has created this fab poster that is destined to become a hot collector's item on ebay.

Movie trivia: After heated debate at the studio, Jim Webb Sold Man was given an R rating. It was felt that once the footage of Gary Condit and Barney Frank hit the cutting room floor, the film no longer met requirements for the big X.

Monday, October 23, 2006

"Cut and Run Democrat John Murtha, also of Penna, is under attack by a great Republican candidate, Diana Irey. I tried for months to get a poll of this race and there was nothing. Then last week the Pittsburgh Tribune released a poll of only 400 people, probably from their offices, that had Murtha up by double digits. But the paper refused to list who they polled, from where and from what party. The poll even had Irey losing in her hometown where she is well liked and very popular.The Irey campaign has called the poll wrong and proved that their internal polling show the race a dead heat."

Friday, October 20, 2006

President George Bush was on his way into town to fundraise for Sen. George Allen. I knew I wouldn't be able to stay long enough to see the motorcade but it was an opportunity to meet up with some fine folks from the Staunton area who had come down to support not only the President and our Senator but our Troops as well. We were joined by a very nice woman and her daughter from the Richmond area (not pictured).

W and Allen had Richmond rockin' and rollin' before the plane touched down. Heh.

Michael Savage likes to say liberalism is a mental disease. As I stood on the street across from the Science Museum yesterday afternoon I felt that in this instance his words were certainly vindicated.

Two older guys (RK says Brad Blanton was one of them. sigh) minced out to the traffic median, pulled up all the Allen for Senate signs they could lay their hands on and minced back. Nevermind that the signs had been placed there under the watchful eyes of the Richmond police. These two brown-shirt wannabees proclaimed that it was against city ordinances and with faces glowing in self-righteousness marched off with their booty.

I must admit that really irked me. You see, when my son came home from Iraq, we made a welcome home sign and stuck it in a place (gubmint property so to speak) where I knew he would see it on his way home. Thankfully, he did see it and was very pleased. But in less than 24 hours a sign-nazi stole it. Those two losers yesterday reminded me once again how petty democrat/ics are.

Webb people were there on the sidewalk and all kinds of other odd lefties. In the press reports afterwards I was so pleased to see that for the first time in this area, the obscenities on the signs and in the chants used by the protesters were reported on.

Code Pink was represented at the protest. (You know, the group that protests every week at Walter Reed Army Medical Center for crying out loud!) They had lots of shoes with pink tags lined up on the grassy knoll. The World Workers Party had their minions there disguised as various anti-war operatives. Same old same old.

These people were angry, inarticulate and pathetic. One young man who stood staring at me for a long time was wearing a tee shirt with arabic looking lettering. I asked him what it meant. He told me it translated "I am an enemy combatant" in reference to recent legislation the President had signed. The poor guy couldn't give me any details of the bill and by the looks of him couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper bag enemy combatant or no, but, boy was he worried.

You know, considering the source, I don't care if democrat/ics mock me but it certainly illustrates their true character when they LIE.From Raising Kaine:

"What is especially sad about that group of 4-6 people was their attitude and lack of respect for freedom of speech. They actually believed that we should be made to leave, even though we had a permit and their group did not. Thy repeatedly whined to the police that the protestors were too loud, that we should go home and respect the event, and that we should be kept to one street corner like they were."

and let's not forget this LIE:

"They actually asked the police numerous times to "speak for the majority (yeah, 6 to 300 is a majority to some people) and turn on the tear gas to shut us up."

And now a fact or two. The only thing we asked the police was where did they want us to stand.

The protesters had an entire block including a grassy knoll not just one corner .

When only three American Patriots were left (2 women and 1 man) the protesters surrounded them, screaming obscenities at them. The police intervened at no one's request. These 3 people were later followed back to their vehicle by the screaming protesters.

Senator Allen just engaged in a brief interview with Jimmy Barrett on WRVA 1140 in Richmond. He promised to assist the area in cutting through red tape regarding disaster assistance and spoke warmly of the President's visit yesterday with an emphasis on the nation's strong economy.

Barrett expressed gratitude for Senator Allen's time and willingness to speak with him pointing out that unlike Allen, Jim Webb, the Democrat/ic candidate has not returned numerous calls for interviews on WRVA.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

This endorsement of Sen. Allen from Richmond's largest African-American paper, The Richmond Voice, was read at the UCV bookclub meeting this evening. The reaction? Wow!

"This has been an election year in which Blacks have had to listen to allegations about which U.S. Senate candidate is a racist, who said the n-word, and so forth. It is sad that when they talk about Black people, it’s only in the context of these trivialities and not about the issues that affect the everyday lives of Black folks.

There are myriad issues that should be dominating conversations—how to ensure that our children grow up in safe, drug free and crime free neighborhoods; how to guarantee an equal playing field for our small businesses when it comes to getting government contracts; how to change the schools in our neighborhoods so they can all pass benchmarks; how to fight the HIV/AIDS ravage of our community; and how to help single parents discontinue the cycle of poverty that governs their lives.

History has shown us that when we are out of sight, we are out of mind. When the elections are over, you just might be out of mind. And if only the campaign was dominated with real issues, at least you would know that you said your piece before you were out of mind.

It was refreshing to learn that state Sen. Benjamin Lambert III had stepped out of the box and was thinking for himself instead of letting his political affiliation think for him. Regardless of what you think, what he did was gigantic because the Democratic Party has always had a noose around Black folks’ necks.

Bishop Gerald O. Glenn of Chesterfield County also spoke out against race baiting, and this newspaper, always an independent thinker, is speaking out too.

We can’t live in the past forever, we must build new bridges and our first step across the bridge is to endorse Sen. George Allen, who is running for re-election. The past allows our slave masters to always tell us how to vote, and this newspaper is doing its part in breaking away from the slave shackles.

Sen. Allen’s record with the Black community may have started out blotchy, but we feel that he has learned the most about what is important to the Black community. We don’t have to justify our endorsement, but we want to tell our readers that a new breeze is blowing and you can either join it or stay shackled in the past."

As they got off the buses, they passed by the Presentation of Flags provided by the Patriot Guard. I was privileged to be a part of this and was especially touched by PG members who have lost loved ones in this conflict that were there to welcome Battery H.

When the Marines hit the parade deck a shout went up that must have been heard in a three county radius. They lined up in formation looking proud and strong. As soon as they were dismissed, their friends and families literally engulfed them with joy. It was lovely pandemonium.

Sunday, October 15, 2006

As I see it, the main problem with the Income Tax is that it is virtually impossible to enforce completely and fairly. Compliance with the Income Tax depends on taxpayer truthfulness, which generally is motivated either by a) good character, or b) fear of an IRS audit. With the FairTax, the tax is collected when the money is spent, from everyone, with greatly reduced opportunities for non-compliance by the public.

For instance, what about the criminal element in our country? Have you ever heard of the Mafia? Or the drug dealer? Do you think that these people report 100% of their income? Of course not! They get out of paying a huge percentage of their actual tax bill by the simple expedient of not reporting all of their income. But these same individuals still have to pay utility bills, purchase prescription drugs, visit doctors, and buy food. And if they believe in the "high life" of new cars, fancy clothes and jewelry, and new homes, they're going to pay more than "Joe Six-pack" who chooses to drive a used car, or purchase a home that's not brand new.

And it's not just individuals who are managing to avoid paying taxes these days. Everyone in America has heard of the rush to move American companies "offshore", whether in whole or in part. Think about it -- have you ever seen an American-flagged commercial vessel? Oh sure, we've got our warships, but what about commercial boats that carry cargo or cruise passengers? Most of these are flying the flag of Liberia or Panama -- low-tax nations.

In the mid-1950s, about 33% of all income taxes collected were paid by American corporations. Today that number is down to approximately 10%. From "The FairTax Book" by Boortz and Linder:

"That plunge is a major factor in our recent soaring deficits. Indeed, international corporations are essentially "voluntary" taxpayers today, paying only that amount in taxes that they believe will avoid attracting embarrassing news coverage. These corporations believe that our draconian tax structures make their actions necessary. The OFCs [offshore financial centers, or banks - TD] make their plans feasible" [Emphasis added - TD]

Boortz and Linder make the point that if we eliminated all taxes on capital and labor, (which the FairTax does), the United States would become the world's tax haven.

We have the most stable economy, the most liquid and trusted markets, and the highest rates of labor productivity in the world -- and the trillions of dollars in those OFCs would flow back home to the United States for the very reason they found themselves offshore to start with.

And we're not just talking about American businesses coming home, we're talking about wooing corporations based in other countries into America. Think of the economic benefits! More productivity, lower unemployment, higher wages, and all occurring within a tax system that allows you at least partly to choose whether to pay taxes! Buy it new, pay a tax, buy it used and don't!

The FairTax Blogburst is jointly produced by Terry of The Right Track Blog and Jonathan of Publius Rendezvous. If you would like to host the weekly postings on your blog, please e-mail Terry. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

(PHILADELPHIA, October 9) -- Washington County Commissioner and Pennyslvania 12th District Republican Congressional nominee Diana Irey today addressed the Philadelphia Chapter of the Republican Jewish Coalition on the topic of "National Defense and Homeland Security."

Below are excerpts of her remarks:

Being asked to speak about "National Defense and Homeland Security" is a bit broad.

I could speak to you of force structure … or the need to upgrade and modernize our nuclear deterrent … or the requirement to build and deploy a ballistic missile defense system … or the challenges posed by an all-volunteer armed force of married soldiers with families, rather than a conscript army of unmarried men and women …

I could talk to you about how best to inspect the hundreds of thousands of cargo containers that enter American ports every year … or the need to conduct background checks on our dock yard work force …

I could talk to you about the need to secure our borders ...

I could speak to you about the challenges posed by rise of China and India … or the threat posed by a nuclear North Korea or Iran …

I could speak to you about any or all of these things, and I would be on topic.

But I fear I would be missing the larger point, and you would go home without having learned anything about the greatest challenge we face in the 21st century.

So instead, if you will, allow me to focus my remarks today on that one topic -- to wit, what is the greatest threat we face in this new century, and what shall we do about it?

The world in which we grew up ended 27 years ago, on November 4, 1979, when hundreds of radical Muslim students overran and occupied the American embassy in Teheran.

For 444 days, the world watched and waited, as a radical Islamic regime held hostage not just 52 diplomats in a fortified bunker, but, in fact, an entire nation thousands of miles away.

For the first time, we Americans -- a proud people, with an altruistic history of sacrificing blood and treasure to free or defend millions of people around the globe from the depredations of dictators and tyrants -- heard our county described savagely as the "Great Satan."

The seizure of the American embassy in Iran in November 1979 by Muslim extremist students was the first shot fired in what is now, clearly, a war with a radical Islam determined to destroy the West and reestablish the Muslim Caliphate along a crescent that stretches from Spain to the Middle East.

This war is unlike any our nation has ever faced -- in fact, it is unlike any war ANY nation has ever faced … Because it is not a war that pits one nation-state against another; it is a war that pits one entire civilization against another.

To make matters worse, we face this war not because of territorial ambitions, or imperial over-reach, or commercial or economic interests …

We face this war because we choose to exist.

It is really that simple. Because we choose to exist, we are now targeted for destruction by radical Islamo-fascists who are determined to destroy us.

For more than three decades, they waged war against America and her principal ally in the Middle East -- Israel -- and we chose not to see it for what it was.

Rather than recognizing what was going on, we chose, like the ostrich, to bury our heads in the sand.

And as a result, we buried American and Israeli bodies in the desert.

The seizure of the American embassy in Teheran in 1979 was followed by the suicide truck bombing against the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut on October 23, 1983, which cost us the lives of 241 young soldiers -- the deadliest single-day death toll for the Marine Corps since the battle of Iwo Jima in World War II.

That attack was carried out by the same Hezbollah terrorists who rain destruction on northern Israel. They were funded, trained, and equipped by Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

And what did we do? Ronald Reagan chose to listen to the counsel of men who advised withdrawal.

Five weeks after Bill Clinton was inaugurated as our 42nd President, a Ryder rental van packed with 1300 pounds of explosives detonated in the underground parking garage of the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Islamo-fascist terrorists linked to what later became known as "al Qaeda" had brought spectacular terrorism on a grand scale home to America for the first time.

Just a few months earlier, American soldiers had been dispatched to Somalia in a humanitarian mission to ensure the safe delivery of foodstuffs to end starvation that had already killed 300,000 Somalis. On October 3rd and 4th, 1993, in what became known as the Battle of Mogadishu -- popularized by the book and movie "Black Hawk Down" -- 19 Americans died at the hands of Somali militias, and Americans watched on CNN as the body of a dead American Marine was dragged through the streets.

What we did not know at the time -- and only learned later -- was that the assault on the American forces was conducted by forces trained, equipped, and funded by the then-virtually-unknown al Qaeda.

And what did we do? Bill Clinton chose to listen to the counsel of men who advised withdrawal.

After that, the attacks against Americans overseas began coming faster and faster:

In June of 1996, a truck bomb exploded outside a U.S. Air Force barracks in Khobar, Saudi Arabia. The bomb was planted by members of an organization called Saudi Hezbollah, a group allied with the Hezbollah terrorists who control southern Lebanon. 19 American servicemen died.

On the morning of August 7, 1998, in coordinated attacks that occurred just minutes apart, car bombs exploded outside the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. 257 people died, and another 4,000 were injured. The attack was carried out by African members of al Qaeda.

On October 12, 2000, in the Gulf of Aden, two suicide bombers rammed their skiff into the side of the U.S.S. Cole, a U.S. Navy guided missile destroyer. They blew a hole 40 feet by 40 feet, and killed 17 Americans. Again, the attack was carried out by terrorists of al Qaeda.

And then, less than a year later, the war came back home to America on 9/11.

Islamo-fascist terrorists are determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can, and destroy our nation -- not because of anything we've done, but simply because of who we are and what we believe.

This is the great challenge facing America in the early years of the 21st century, and we need leaders who understand this threat and are committed not just to defending against it, but to defeating it.

When Osama bin Laden -- the world's most dangerous Islam-fascist terrorist -- issued his famous call to arms in August 1996, he "praised the 1983 suicide bombing in Beirut … and especially the 1993 firefight in Somalia after which the United States 'left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you,'" according to the 9/11 Commission report.

The American embassy in Teheran. Beirut. Word Trade Center One. Mogadishu. The Khobar Towers. American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. The U.S.S. Cole.

Each time, our response was muted. Each time, terrorists learned a simple lesson: they could kill Americans with impunity.

President Bush has determined that enough is enough. In his speech following the terrible attacks of September 11, he declared that it would be the policy of the American Government to defeat these terrorists, and that we would no longer tolerate other governments allowing terrorists to operate from within their nations. "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists," he said.

I support the President.

In Iraq today, we are engaged in the central front of the War on Terror.

We know that because the terrorists themselves have said so.

Do I wish this war were over? Of course I do.

But this war will not be over until one side or the other is vanquished. And I, for one, do not want to have to explain to my children why America lacked the will to defend itself.

When a bully confronts you in the schoolyard, you have two choices -- you can run and hide, or you can stand your ground and fight back.

If you run and hide, he will come after you. Again and again and again.

But if you stand your ground and fight back, you can beat him.

For too long, America has acted like a frightened child.

But the stakes in this conflict are too large for us to continue to act that way.

For the sake of our children, and our children's children, we must defeat this enemy NOW.

The war in Iraq is difficult. I know. I have spent time visiting with wounded soldiers at Walter Reed. I have seen their courage, and been honored by their sacrifice.

I, for one, will not allow their sacrifices to have been in vain.

I, for one, will not turn my back on the 12 million Iraqis who braved terrorist threats of death to cast a vote in their most recent election.

I, for one, will not cower before cowards who send young boys and girls out with bombs strapped to their bodies, and then hide amongst women and children.

Withdrawing from Iraq now, before the mission is complete, would be just one more time that America raises the white flag of surrender.

Withdrawing from Iraq now would merely send the message to the terrorists one more time that America does not have the will to prevail -- and it would, therefore, embolden the terrorists and lead to even further attacks.

Withdrawing from Iraq now would send a message to other governments as well, that America is an undependable ally -- and that it is safer to cut a deal with the terrorists than to count on us.

The Islamo-fascist terrorists who threaten us may be the first to engage in a clash of civilizations, but they are not the first to threaten America. Their fate will be the same as the fate of others before them who threatened us.

A few weeks ago, we commemorated the fifth anniversary of the attacks that woke us to the gathering storm. Our President addressed the nation that evening from the Oval Office, and I'd like to close my remarks by quoting his: "The attacks" he said, "were meant to bring us to our knees, and they did, but not in the way the terrorists intended.

"Americans united in prayer, came to the aid of neighbors in need, and resolved that our enemies would not have the last word.

"The spirit of our people is the source of America's strength.

"And we go forward with trust in that spirit, confidence in our purpose, and faith in a loving God who made us to be free," he concluded.

America will be the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.

Friday, October 06, 2006

We drove up from Powhatan, VA and arrived in Shanksville, PA at 4:00 in the afternoon. Cresting the hill overlooking the crash site of Flight 93 the wind was blowing hard. All the flags flew straight out at attention and the clouds moved quickly overhead continually changing the light on the field and the Memorial.

James H. Webb, Jr. and Hillary Clinton got together to raise some bucks on Tuesday, October 3rd in Northern Virginiastan. You'd think there would be massive coverage on the lefty blogs but the Hillary has definitely been played down (I wouldn't use the term "suppressed" but it did come to mind).

Here are some visuals of the gay affair.

Now that wasn't so bad, was it Jimmy? Put some ice on it and you'll be fine.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Hopefully this will be my one and only post on the nefarious Congressman Mark Foley and his communicants.

Nobody, myself included, is sorry he resigned. Well, perhaps there may be a few Log Cabin Republicans out there feeling a bit of angst over it but who's counting.

This whole scandal blew up so fast and furious with so few facts and so much fanfare from the MSM most sensible people smelled a 'Rat.

So what happens if the gross Instant Messages were from/to an 18 year old who is now a 21 year old Democrat/ic working on a Democrat/ic campaign?UPDATE: The 21 year old in question is working on a Republican campaign and has hired a lawyer. Hmmm...

It has been interesting lately to observe just what the critics of the Fair Tax have to say. Lately, much of what has been said has centered around percentages. Clever as it may be to confuse people with cleverly worded assertions that tend to fool the average American when it comes to these issues. If anyone in the audience is similar to me, it takes focused attention lest my eyes glaze over at the thought of following someone's lessons involving percentages, statistics and numbers in general.

Succinctly, what has been asserted that I have seen generally resembles something such as this:

Remember, even the proponents admit they'd need a 23 percent tax rate to fund the current size of the federal government. However, they are starting out their new "fair" tax system with highly deceptive language.

H.R. 25, Section 101(b)(1) states "FOR 2005- In the calendar year 2005, the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments for the taxable property or service." Note the phrase "of the gross payment."

Here's how it works: You buy a candy bar for a total price, including tax, of $1.30. One dollar of that price pays for the candy bar; $.30 goes to the federal government.

One dollar purchase + $.30 in tax sounds like 30 percent to you and me (and to every state that currently has a sales tax). But the "FairTaxers" don't calculate it that way. They say: $1.30 total price. $.30 = 23 percent of $1.30, therefore the tax is 23 percent.

Many critics have pointed out that this is a deceptive way to calculate a sales tax. AFT rebuts the critics by saying (we paraphrase for simplicity), "If you made $1.30 in income and paid $.30 of it in tax, you'd call it a 23 percent tax rate." The 23 percent figure is what AFT refers to as the "tax inclusive" rate.

But a sales tax is not an income tax, and when we see national sales tax advocates and uncritical journalists promoting the 23 percent figure without giving the underlying explanation, we can only think that some very thick wool is being pulled over people's eyes.

But, as we shall see, there is yet again another major study that has been conducted that definitively illustrates the merit of the Fair Tax. As has been reported by The Fair Tax Blog, Boston University Economics Professor Laurence Kotlikoff's much-anticipated study of the necessary revenue-neutral rate for the FairTax has been published and released. Terry and I will refrain from reproducing the entire study, but peruse through the abstract below to see just how much the supporters already know!

As specified in Congressional bill H.R. 25/S. 25, the FairTax is a proposal to replace the federal personal income tax, corporate income tax, payroll (FICA) tax, capital gains, alternative minimum, self-employment, and estate and gifts taxes with a single-rate federal retail sales tax. The FairTax also provides a prebate to each household based on its demographic composition. The prebate is set to ensure that households pay no taxes net on spending up to the poverty level.

Bill Gale (2005) and the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform (2005) suggest that the effective (tax inclusive) tax rate needed to implement H.R. 25 is far higher than the proposed 23% rate. This study, which builds on Gale's (2005) analysis, shows that a 23% rate is eminently feasible and suggests why Gale and the Tax Panel reached the opposite conclusion.

This paper begins by projecting the FairTax's 2007 tax base net of its rebate. Next it calculates the tax rate needed to maintain the real levels of federal and state spending under the FairTax. It then determines if an effective rate of 23% would be sufficient to fund 2007 estimated spending or if not, the amount by which non-Social Security federal expenditures would need to be reduced. Finally, it shows that the FairTax imposes no additional real fiscal burdens on state and local government, notwithstanding the requirement that such governments pay the FairTax when they purchase goods and services.

Implementing the FairTax rate of 23% would produce $2,586 billion in federal tax revenues which is $358 billion more than the $2,228 billion in tax revenues generated by the taxes it repeals. Adjusting the base for the prebate and the administrative credit paid to businesses and states for collecting the tax results in a net tax base of $9,355 billion. In 2007, spending at current levels is projected to be $3,285 billion. Revenues from the FairTax at a 23% tax rate, plus other federal revenues, are estimated to yield $3,209 billion which is $76 billion less than current CBO spending projections for 2007. The $76 billion amounts to only 2.73% of non-Social Security spending ($2,177 - $2,101). This is a remarkably small adjustment when set against the more than 30% rise in the real value of these expenditures since 2000.

Ensuring real revenue neutrality at the federal level, given the net base of $9,355 billion, implies a rate of 23.82% on a tax-inclusive basis and 31.27% on a tax-exclusive basis. These and other calculations presented here ignore a) general equilibrium feedback (supply-side and demand-side) effects that could significantly raise the FairTax base (see, for example, Kotlikoff and Jokisch, 2005), b) the possibility that tax evasion would exceed the considerable amount automatically incorporated here via the use of NIPA data, which undercount consumption expenditures due to evasion under the current tax system, and c) the roughly $1 trillion real capital gain the federal government would secure on its outstanding nominal debt, were consumer prices to rise by the full amount of the FairTax.

The FairTax redistributes real purchasing power from state and local governments to their state and local income-tax taxpayers. It does so by reducing factor prices relative to consumer prices and, thereby, reducing the real value (measured at consumer prices) of state and local income tax payments, which are assessed on factor incomes (namely, factor supplies times factor prices).

Gale (2005) and the Tax Panel (2005) recognized this loss in real state and local government revenues in claiming that these governments need to be compensated for having to pay the FairTax. But what they apparently missed is that this loss to these governments is exactly offset by a gain to their taxpayers.

Were state and local governments to maintain their real income tax collections - the assumption made here - by increasing their tax rates appropriately, their taxpayers' real tax burdens would remain unchanged and there would be no need for the federal government to compensate state and local governments for having to pay the FairTax on their purchases. The second is that H.R. 25 does not preclude state and local governments from levying their sales taxes on the FairTax-inclusive price of consumer goods and services. This produces significantly more revenue compared to levying their sales taxes on producer prices.

Moreover, Gale (2005) and the Tax Panel (2005) arrived at a higher tax rate because they did not estimate the FairTax rate, but instead estimated a sales tax of their own design which had a substantially narrower base.

The FairTax Blogburst is jointly produced by Terry of The Right Track Blog and Jonathan of Publius Rendezvous. If you would like to host the weekly postings on your blog, please e-mail Terry. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll.

Faces of Coal Has Something You Need To See
FACES of Coal is an alliance of people from all walks of life who have joined forces to educate lawmakers and the public about the importance of coal to our local and national economies.
Join today at www.facesofcoal.org